Daryl wrote:We have a current case. A mining magnate bought a big nickle smelting business. Put his nephew in as a puppet CEO, then stripped $300M out with the end result being 1200 workers lost their secure long term jobs and entitlements after the smelter closed. The nephew is living a high life in Bulgaria, uncontactable by interpol yet the media can find him. Meanwhile the original villain is $300M richer and untouchable. Yet if it had been a company bookkeeper who stole say $3000 they would be in prison now.The laws need to be changed, and in this case retrospectively.

Perhaps Australia has no issues with ex post factolaws, but the US has a constitutional ban on them. Not that I don't 100% agree with you on this.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~The imagination has to be trained into foresight and empathy. Ursula K. LeGuinn

I generally hate them myself, but think they could be justified in this case.You raise an interesting point, we had an Australian citizen held in Guantanamo for terrorism. He wasn't particularly bright, and had been seduced into going over to the sand box before hostilities commenced. An Afghan warlord captured him and sold him to the US after they invaded. He was then charged with a retrospective terrorism law of aiding the enemy, who incidentally wasn't the enemy when he was idly and incompetently standing in the desert. After 5 years in a cage he pleaded guilty so he could be released and come home. So was this able to be done because he was never on US soil, so your constitution wasn't relevant?

pappilon wrote:

Daryl wrote:We have a current case. A mining magnate bought a big nickle smelting business. Put his nephew in as a puppet CEO, then stripped $300M out with the end result being 1200 workers lost their secure long term jobs and entitlements after the smelter closed. The nephew is living a high life in Bulgaria, uncontactable by interpol yet the media can find him. Meanwhile the original villain is $300M richer and untouchable. Yet if it had been a company bookkeeper who stole say $3000 they would be in prison now.The laws need to be changed, and in this case retrospectively.

Perhaps Australia has no issues with ex post factolaws, but the US has a constitutional ban on them. Not that I don't 100% agree with you on this.

Daryl wrote:I generally hate them myself, but think they could be justified in this case.You raise an interesting point, we had an Australian citizen held in Guantanamo for terrorism. He wasn't particularly bright, and had been seduced into going over to the sand box before hostilities commenced. An Afghan warlord captured him and sold him to the US after they invaded. He was then charged with a retrospective terrorism law of aiding the enemy, who incidentally wasn't the enemy when he was idly and incompetently standing in the desert. After 5 years in a cage he pleaded guilty so he could be released and come home. So was this able to be done because he was never on US soil, so your constitution wasn't relevant?

That was The Shrub (Bush Jr). He was playing loose with everything from the Constitution to the Geneva Conventions, with legal opinions from his chief consul as cover. He classified then as civilian combatants so he did not have to treat them as POWs, in violation of the 2nd convention which clearly and unambiguously states that civilian combatants are to be turned over to their civilian government. He got hammered at least twice by the SCOTUS for violating the rights of the detainees in violation of the Constitution.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~The imagination has to be trained into foresight and empathy. Ursula K. LeGuinn

Munchkin was a category of parts in the movie. Referring to actors according to their roles is a common practice in Hollywood. Speaking of some of the actors in 'The Great Escape' as 'prison camp guards' does not mean we're accusing them of war crimes.

Why the hell are so many whiners 'offended' by calling a thing what it is? 'Dwarf' and 'midget' are well-defined medical terms for specific growth disorders. Not using them won't make anybody any taller.

George Carlin: "They're not dead, they're 'living-impaired'!"

Words have meanings, and everybody has to agree on those meanings in order to communicate. Unfortunately, there are those that don't like to hear certain words, and raise a stink about it.

So they demand that we use some wussy-sounding new term, everybody bends over to appease them, and then before ya know it they get 'offended' by that one, too. Problem is, they're not offended by the words, but by the meanings. Substituting new words is an exercise in futility. For example, how long will it be before 'african-american' wears out its welcome?———————————"Oh, no, calling them 'brain-eating zombies' would be offensive! They are partially ambulatory formerly-living persons with specific dietary preferences and a limited vocabulary."

Imaginos1892 wrote:Munchkin was a category of parts in the movie. Referring to actors according to their roles is a common practice in Hollywood. Speaking of some of the actors in 'The Great Escape' as 'prison camp guards' does not mean we're accusing them of war crimes.

Why the hell are so many whiners 'offended' by calling a thing what it is? 'Dwarf' and 'midget' are well-defined medical terms for specific growth disorders. Not using them won't make anybody any taller.

George Carlin: "They're not dead, they're 'living-impaired'!"

Words have meanings, and everybody has to agree on those meanings in order to communicate. Unfortunately, there are those that don't like to hear certain words, and raise a stink about it.

So they demand that we use some wussy-sounding new term, everybody bends over to appease them, and then before ya know it they get 'offended' by that one, too. Problem is, they're not offended by the words, but by the meanings. Substituting new words is an exercise in futility. For example, how long will it be before 'african-american' wears out its welcome?———————————"Oh, no, calling them 'brain-eating zombies' would be offensive! They are partially ambulatory formerly-living persons with specific dietary preferences and a limited vocabulary."

----------------------------------

Well if I use The "N", "C" or "F" word You can be sure there is a Liberal Group out there that would like to lynch Me like a "N" word